Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I can't help you with that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Burden of Proof
- Thread starter PoetPhilosopher
- Start date
I see in Faith the following to be applicable;
The greatest proof of a Messenger of God, in proof of the Word they give from God, is their own person and life. They are the first to live the Message given. They willingly accept the consequence of giving that Message, to a wayward and unresponsive generation. The burden of responsibility stops at that point, they have done what God asked them to do, given the proofs and the elixer for that age.
Thus the burden of acceptance then becomes the choice of each individual. Those that have accepted then face the situation on a personal level. First they must live what the Messenger taught and show in person and in deeds that they have been born again into the spirit of that given message. They then have also been given the obligation to share that Message. If it is rejected, then the advice is to walk away, there is no burden to provide anything else, although there are other tangents that allow this obligation to continue.
Regards Tony
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Guys, this was an insightful debate. I have reached the following conclusion:
I have a different method of debate practices than most here, so I have to question whether I continue to want to debate in the debate threads. If I do, I will have to change my ideas on the Burden of Proof.
The only thing that can be established now, is who is the most correct. And not which one of us needs to change our debate practices, which I have established already as me - not the forum.
So with that, I wanted to thank everyone for their opinions. I may take a slightly more invisible role in the discussion now.
I have a different method of debate practices than most here, so I have to question whether I continue to want to debate in the debate threads. If I do, I will have to change my ideas on the Burden of Proof.
The only thing that can be established now, is who is the most correct. And not which one of us needs to change our debate practices, which I have established already as me - not the forum.
So with that, I wanted to thank everyone for their opinions. I may take a slightly more invisible role in the discussion now.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
My vote: For something like this, it's not a matter of proving it. It's a matter of defending it.
If I didn't agree with you, I could provide examples of things which are like God, and thus showing your claim is false. But... most people who speak this way are not being literal. They are exaggerating to prove a larger point. And it seems like ignoring it is better than hacking at the semantic failure of the claim.
In my experience, because of the way my mind works, the conversation usually devolves quickly if I take people too literally.
Last edited:
That is a difficult one as Faith can tell us that there is "No other object in the universe is like God", but it is not easily defended.
From my Faith teachings, God is unknowable and all we can and have conceived about God is just a knowledge of Gods Manifestations or Prophets.
Thus any proof or defence would be use of what they have offered and one can not make any other person believe that.
Regards Tony
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I agree and I understand. I was speaking hypothetically.
Would that not require that you first have a complete, exhaustive understanding of "what God is like?" Otherwise, however could you make the comparison?
And since I very sincerely doubt that you have that, I strongly doubt that you have "the stronger side."
I think you are quite correct that a "negative assertion," for our purposes, isn't a thing.
I am an atheist, but I have never said, "God does not exist." I have often said things like, "I have never seen anything that suggests to me that a God is operating the universe," or "Your statement that the existence of the universe proves the existence of God does no such thing...it proves the existence of the universe." Those are statements that I claim to be true, and in my view they are true. Certainly the first, which speaks to the contents of my own mind and beliefs, is entirely true.
And really, the second is true, for me at least, because the existence of the universe, in the light of current thought from both religious and secular realms, no more depends on a special creation by God than it depends on a minor event in a multiverse.
The burden of proof is on the one trying to get the person to change and the proof must be understandable for said person or it is useless.
If you are debating in a forum you are not only debating the person but leaving a trial for those who find the debate interesting, not providing useful information and you will not win over any body but those that already support your cause. If you want to make change you need to provide proofs, that is the burden of proof. If you don't want to make change just keep stating that its somebody else's burden.
The only knowledge open to us on this subject is God's Manifestations. Thus we can aquire that knowledge by listening to what they say and by their lives. To us they are the 'Self of God' and all we can know and at the same time, are not God in essence.
Regards Tony
I see that is part of the difference between what is sharing fruitful ideas in a debate and what it is to proselytize.
Personally I am not here to change any view, I can not do that, it is not in any way up to me. All I can do is share what I have found with the clash of other ideas and in the process we can learn more.
The RF platform shows how fruitless it is to take the position that one is in control of change. The only change we can make, is to our own selves, be it good or bad.
Regards Tony
KelseyR
The eternal optimist!
Burden of proof is a prudent measure within rational determinism and no belief is obliged to acknowledge its usefulness- much less satisfy the onuses it levies.
When teaching burden of proof it's best to not mention positive and negative claims. BOP is about establishing that the likelihood of correctness resides in one belief. This is achieved by first defining each belief as a composite of factors; this letting us know exactly how many beliefs there are. Next we penalize extraordinary factorial choices: this allowing us to establish a ranking system (a potential correctness scale) for all beliefs.
When teaching burden of proof it's best to not mention positive and negative claims. BOP is about establishing that the likelihood of correctness resides in one belief. This is achieved by first defining each belief as a composite of factors; this letting us know exactly how many beliefs there are. Next we penalize extraordinary factorial choices: this allowing us to establish a ranking system (a potential correctness scale) for all beliefs.
Last edited:
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
My understanding of God is that He probably has a sense of beauty not depicted by organized religion.
Your move:
Tony, I am sorry to have to tell you that my viewpoint is quite different, because I do not know how to differentiate between a "manifestation" and a "claim." What's much, much worse, in this world of wildly divergent beliefs, the vast majority, by the way, the result of either a "manifestation" or a false "claim." They certainly cannot all be the same, or God himself is an utter failure at Communication 101
Sorry, your statement is meaningless to me. And the fact that your "understanding of God" matches just about nobody else's suggests to me that it's not a lot more meaningful to you.
I see one would not have to know to discuss the issue, as that is how we all learn. That is a situation, when one could ask how to know the difference and why views are so varied, if one so chooses to.
That is, if there was a debate on those specific questions.
Regards Tony
PureX
Veteran Member
Once again, "proof" is in the eyes of the beholder. Therefor it is a subjective standard, and not an objective one. So that demanding "proof" is basically demanding that the proposer engage in a the impossible (overcome someone else's bias). Once we understand and accept this, the whole business of "burden of proof" becomes moot, and we can see that what we are really asking for is reasonable justification for the asserted proposition. We still may or may not accept this justification for our own, but we can wish learn from the proposer's reasoned perspective.
When I see someone proclaiming that so-and-so must meet the "burden of proof" because they have asserted some proposition of truth, I know I am witnessing ignorance and bias hiding behind philosophical jargon.
When I see someone proclaiming that so-and-so must meet the "burden of proof" because they have asserted some proposition of truth, I know I am witnessing ignorance and bias hiding behind philosophical jargon.